This is a very sensitive issue, especially because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
I state that I believe that all people on the earth are equal and they have all equally entitled to the same rights.

But the incidence in some populations of some genetic traits, can affects positively or negatively the prosperity of a people

These factors are factors that influence the populations in the long time.
In fact, the slight or well-being of a people today, is the result of factors that go on for many years.
Even if it want, uganda cannot improve his economic condition from one day to another. It takes some time

Stefansen-W wrote:
...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.

Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.

Bremenacht wrote:
Can it be healthy for the world economy, when wealth concentrates so much with so few people? Much of that wealth is clearly inactive or else it would be somewhere else in the 99.n%.

That very much depends on if you believe in the trickle down effect.

I'm really not sure if there is a solution to the problem of wealth centralisation. I think the tax breaks and other cash generating reforms that have been lobbied for in America are not helping any one and congress should be more robust against this sort of thing. The same applies over here, politicians need to be more robust in how they deal with the financial elite.

^This. As I said earlier, the wealth sitting with the relative few doesn't affect whether most of us have to work for a living (or more accurately, produce stuff that we want/need). But if pay was distributed more evenly, I'm sure things would a lot better for a huge number of people. 6 and 7 figure salaries don't make sense compared to the average wage, in my opinion. Perhaps that makes me a communist, I don't know.

TheBlackDog wrote:
6 and 7 figure salaries don't make sense compared to the average wage, in my opinion. Perhaps that makes me a communist, I don't know.

I just don't see how massive salaries for a tiny minority are avoidable if you have a supply/demand economic system. Those with incredibly rare skills that there is a massive need for, will generate huge incomes.

Unless you're saying that system itself is flawed, in which case yes, you're a communist

Bremenacht wrote:
Can it be healthy for the world economy, when wealth concentrates so much with so few people? Much of that wealth is clearly inactive or else it would be somewhere else in the 99.n%.

That very much depends on if you believe in the trickle down effect.

I'm really not sure if there is a solution to the problem of wealth centralisation. I think the tax breaks and other cash generating reforms that have been lobbied for in America are not helping any one and congress should be more robust against this sort of thing. The same applies over here, politicians need to be more robust in how they deal with the financial elite.

I very much believe in trickle-up.

I don't think there's anything to be done about it. How do you get people with $billions to spend, when there's little they need to spend on? (Other than other $billion-making opportunities).

Stefansen-W wrote:
...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.

Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.

When you start talking about cultural and social differences between the populations of the world, you often end up getting to issues such as racism or nationalism.
And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.

Stefansen-W wrote:
...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.

Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.

When you start talking about cultural and social differences between the populations of the world, you often end up getting to issues such as racism or nationalism.
And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.

therefore I said that it is a difficult issue

By the way, you very specifically cited genetic, not cultural or social.

It's like a game of poker.
when the money ends up in the hands of one or two players for the remaining is difficult to play and the game can not proceed.

The global economic situation is precisely at that stage.
the modern industrialized world, is based on demand / production / supply and intermediary agents, but if the money went into the hands of the few, no longer makes sense to them still produce, and the system crashes

The problem with attributing things to genetics on a global scale is the presence of confounding factors. If genetic traits are not uniformly distributed (regardless of their effect on wealth creation or otherwise), and neither are other factors which *would* be associated with potential for wealth production (e.g. suitability of land for agriculture or other natural resources) then you get the appearance that one may be associated with another, but in fact they're just associated with a third, coincident, variable: they both affect people on a certain chunk of land. There is no direct causative link.

Stefansen-W wrote:
...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.

Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.

When you start talking about cultural and social differences between the populations of the world, you often end up getting to issues such as racism or nationalism.
And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.

therefore I said that it is a difficult issue

By the way, you very specifically cited genetic, not cultural or social.

For example:
In the Zuzzurù tribe, it manifests a genetic defect. First it hits 4 people, then reproducing affects 80% of individuals. The genetic defect involves that these people can not use their arms for a long time.
then it is likely that the Zuzzurù tribe will not have a warrior culture, nor an economic system of production of manufactured goods. Maybe they will become good traders. But in a time of famine, when the business slows down, they risk poverty or become extinct, they can not conquer through war the wealth of other peoples and they can not produce manufacturing objects for their livelihood.

Can we say that genetics has influenced as much as the famine on their poverty in this case?